Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T20:24:25.055Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential pragmatic language loss after closed head injury: Ability to comprehend conversational implicature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Skye McDonald
Skye McDonald*
Affiliation:
Lidcombe Hospital, New South Wales
*
Department of Neuropsychology, Lidcombe Hospital, Joseph Street, Lidcombe, 2141, New South Wales, Australia
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two experiments in which 2 closed-head-injured (CHI) subjects and 12 non-brain-damaged control subjects took part investigated the capacity to comprehend indirect speech acts. In the first experiment, the subjects were required to interpret conventional indirect speech acts. One CHI subject, but not the other, had trouble rejecting the literal meaning. In the second experiment, the subjects were required to interpret the meaning behind two literally conflicting sentences. While the control subjects interpreted these as representing a sarcastic exchange, the CHI subjects were unable to provide an adequate explanation. The results were interpreted in terms of common cognitive deficits after closed head injury.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , July 1992, pp. 295 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Clark, H. H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 430–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 14, 56–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Schunk, D. H. (1980). Polite responses to polite requests. Cognition, 8, 111–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioural measurements: Theory of generalisability for scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Edgington, E. S. (1980). Randomisation tests: Statistics, textbooks and monographs (Vol. 31). New York: Dekker.Google Scholar
Foldi, N. S. (1987). Appreciation of pragmatic interpretations of indirect commands: Comparison of right and left hemisphere brain damaged patients. Brain and Language, 31, 88–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbs, R. W. (1982). A critical examination of the contribution of literal meaning to understanding nonliteral discourse. Text, 2, 9–28.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1986). On the psycholinguistics of sarcasm. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 115, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, D., & Lakoff, G. (1975). Conversational postulates. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 83–106). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J.(Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58).New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagan, C. (1982). Language-cognitive disorganisation following closed head injury: A conceptualisation. In Trexler, L. (Ed.), Cognitive rehabilitation: Conceptualisation and intervention (pp. 131–151). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, W., LeDoux, J., & Stein, S. (1984). Constraints of processing indirect speech acts:Evidence from aphasiology. Brain and Language, 23, 26–33.Google Scholar
Holland, A. L. (1984). When is aphasia aphasia? The problem of closed head injury. In Brookshire, R. W. (Ed.), Clinical aphasiology (Vol. 14, pp. 345–349). Minneapolis: BRK Publishers.Google Scholar
Jorgenson, J., Miller, G., & Sperber, D. (1984). Test of the mention theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 112–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kertesz, A. (1981). Western Aphasia Battery. New York: Grune & Sratton.Google Scholar
Levin, H. S., Grossman, R. G., Rose, S. E., & Teasdale, G. (1979). Long term neuropsychological outcome of closed head injury. Journal of Neurosurgery, 50, 412–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lezak, M. D. (1983). Neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mentis, M., & Prutting, C. A. (1987). Cohesion in the discourse of normal and head injured adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 88–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milton, S. B., Prutting, C. A., & Binder, G. M. (1984). Appraisal of communication competence in head injured adults. In Brookshire, R. W. (Ed.), Clinical aphasiology (Vol. 14, pp. 114–123). Minneapolis: BRK Publishers.Google Scholar
Prigatano, G. P., Roueche, J. R., & Fordyce, D. J. (1986). Neuropsychological rehabilitation after brain injury. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Prutting, C. A., & Kirchner, D. M. (1987). A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 105–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3). New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychology Bulletin, 86, 420–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slugoski, B. R., & Turnbull, W. (1988). Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: Sarcasm, banter and social relations. Language and Society, 7, 101–121.Google Scholar
Snow, P., Lambier, J., Parson, C., Mooney, L., Couch, D., & Russell, J. (1987). Conversational skills following closed head injury: Some preliminary findings. In Field, C., Kneebone, A., & Reid, M. W. (Eds.), Brain impairment: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Brain Impairment Conference. Richmond, Victoria: Australian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment.Google Scholar
Sohlberg, M. M., & Mateer, C. A. (1989). Introduction to cognitive rehabilitation: Theory and practice. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1984). Verbal irony: Pretence or echoic mention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 130–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use mention distinction. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thomsen, I. V. (1975). Evaluation and outcome of aphasia in patients with severe closed head trauma. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 38, 713–718.Google ScholarPubMed
Walsh, K. W. (1985). Understanding brain damage: A primer of neuropsychological evaluation. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingston.Google Scholar
Weylman, S. T., Brownell, H. H., Roman, M., & Gardner, H. (1989). Appreciation of indirect requests by left and right damaged patients: The effects of verbal context and conventionality of wording. Brain and Language, 36, 580–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar